Alleged weapons transfers are a ruse. Israel’s May 4 and 5 attacks were a joint US/Israeli operation. They were lawless. They were provocative.

They were launched to goad Syria to respond. Doing so would facilitate greater intervention. Assad wasn’t fooled. He’s fully engaged internally. He’s not about to give Washington, Israel, Turkey or other belligerent states reason to attack.

The Times said the “precise motives for Israel’s warning were uncertain.” Perhaps it’s preparing another strike. If so, why would warning Syria precede it?

After Israel’s May 4 and 5 attacks, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said “(w)e will respond immediately and harshly to any additional attack by Israel.” He justifiably called Israel’s aggression a “declaration of war.”

Israel’s very much part of Obama’s war on Syria. Whether it plans more provocations remains to be seen. Both countries operate jointly.

Whatever the risks of intervening, inaction risks more, they claim. Post editors want more arms for insurgents. They urge an air campaign. “(T)he situation in Syria has grown more dangerous to US interests.”

It’s “increasingly clear that the greatest risk to the United States lies in failing to take decisive action to end the Assad regime.”

“If the Obama administration is to lead on Syria, it must commit itself to steps that can bring about the early collapse of the regime and its replacement by a representative and responsible alternative.”

“Only direct political and military intervention on the side of the opposition can make that happen.”

Instead of urging direct military intervention, “Kerry seems to have reversed his strategy. Rather than taking steps to turn the tide against (Assad, he’s) rushing to convene a peace conferenceâ€¦”

“Not a shred of public evidence suggests that Mr. Assad is willing to negotiate his own departure.”

“It appears as if the administration again is hoping that the Russian government of VladiÂ­mir Putin will deliver Mr. Assad.”

“The administration made that same wishful bet last year, only to be stiffed by Mr. Putin.”

“The anti-American campaign Mr. Putin has been waging continues apace, as shown by the Cold War-style propaganda operation staged in Moscow Tuesday following the arrest of an alleged American spy.”

Kerry’s initiative, “like those before it, is more likely to provide excuses for US passivity than an end to Syria’s carnage.”

WaPo editors want war. So does contributor David Ignatius. He has close ties to US intelligence. He openly favors arming anti-Assad death squads.

He wants Assad ousted. So do Charles Krauthammer, Jackson Diehl and other WaPo contributors. They’re not alone. US media scoundrels urged it since 2011.

Only their policy recommendations differ. They’re indifferent to human suffering. They point fingers the wrong way. They blame Assad for Washington’s war.

They support America’s imperial ambitions. They’re comfortable with whatever it takes to achieve them. They promote Washington’s war on terrorism.

They’re mindless about policy priorities to ravage the world one country at a time or in multiples. They ignore US crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. They’ve said nothing about torture as official US policy.

They’re silent about escalating domestic tyranny. They claim America’s economy is improving at a time of deepening main street Depression. Half or more of US households are impoverished or bordering on it.

Millions are one pay check or medical emergency away from homelessness and/or bankruptcy. The state of today’s America is lawless, ruthless, oppressive, and contemptuous of fundamental democratic values.

War on the world is policy. Innocent victims fill America’s gulag. Human need increasingly goes begging. War and corporate priorities take precedence.

“Over the past 800 days, the conflict has continued to escalate, threatening the establishment of ethnic or sectarian fiefdoms – thus gravely imperiling the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.”

“It is surprising that the draft resolution was presented within the item titled – prevention of the outbreak of armed conflicts – while the context of the draft totally contradicts this noble address as it has sought to escalate the crisis and instigate violence in Syria through creating a dangerous precedent in the international relations, which try to give legitimacy to offering weapons to the armed terrorist groups in Syria.”

Russia’s deputy permanent UN representative, Alexander Pankin, called the measure “irresponsible, unconstructive, and it aggravates the situation in Syria, in addition to hindering the international efforts to implement the Geneva Communique.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi said:

“The resolution has been issued at a time when Syria and the region need peace and stability more than ever.”

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.